1 2025:CGHC:43018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6417 of 2025 1 - Mohit Kumar Tandan S/o Shri Munnalal Tandan, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village- Rampur, Police Outpost- Karhibazar, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 25 / 08 / 2025 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 331/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District –Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 4, 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.25 17:41:31 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that, on 01.04.2025 victim/complainant lodged a report with the averment that she known the applicant who is residing in her village and on 15.01.2024, she was alone in her house, the applicant on false pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her and on 22.03.2024 taken her to Hyderabad, taken the rented premises and kept her from 22.03.2024 to 28.12.2024, developed physical relation with her, she left the company of the applicant on 28.12.2024 and informed the incident to her parents on 01.04.2025 and lodged the report. On the basis of the said report, the police station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara registered the F.I.R. (First Information Report) bearing Crime No. 331/2025 against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case with no connection to the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the victim has voluntarily accompanied the applicant and she was a consenting party, and at the time of lodging of FIR, the victim was major, therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 01.04.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submitting that at the time of the incident, the victim was a minor, aged about 17 years 06 months. Given 3 the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant should not be granted bail, at this stage. 5. Today, victim along with her mother appeared before this Court and raised her objection in granting bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking at the material available on record and the evidence against the applicant, and further considering the fact that the victim has supported the prosecution’s case and lodged the report against the applicant and today also the victim appeared in person and raised an objection in granting bail to the applicant, therefore, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. 9. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.